Ending of Mark - Tregelles and Metzger fake-out on the canonical status (Burgon response)

Steven Avery



Thank you, gjwolfswinke!

That is not a real accurate explanation of the TR position.

As to the Pericope Adulterae, this type of explanation is a bit of a shell game offered by textual critics who want to play both ends against the middle.

And here is Bruce Metzger doing the same canonical song and dance on the Mark ending.

“There seems to be good reason, therefore, to conclude that, though external and internal evidence is conclusive against the authenticity of the last twelve verses as coming from the same pen as the rest of the Gospel, the passage ought to be accepted as part of the canonical text of Mark.”

The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development, and Significance (1997)
Bruce M. Metzger

Similar even in the 1800s from Tregelles:

“ I. That the book of Mark himself extends no farther than ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ, xvi. 8.
“II. That, the remaining twelve verses, by whomsoever written, have a full claim to be received as an authentic part of the second Gospel, and that the full reception of early testimony on this question does not in the least involve their rejection as not being a part of canonical Scripture.”

An Account of the Printed Text of the Greek New Testament: With Remarks on Its Revision Upon Critical Principles (1854) (2013)
Samuel Prideaux Tregelles

Responding to Tregelles, John William Burgon cut to the heart of the matter:

”—the learned writer betrays a misapprehension of the question at issue, which we are least of all prepared to encounter in such a quarter. We admire his piety but it is at the expense of his critical sagacity. For the question is not at all one of authorship, but only one of genuineness. Have the codices been mutilated which do not contain these verses? If they have, then must these verses be held to be genuine. But on the contrary, Have the codices been supplemented which contain them? Then are these verses certainly spurious."

The Last Twelve Verses of the Gospel According to S. Mark Vindicated Against Recent Critical Objectors and Established (1871)
John William Burgon

Steven Avery
Dutchess County, NY USA
Last edited:

Steven Avery

F. F. Bruce

On the ending of Mark you see his classic confused textcrit dupe approach, trying to attack Burgon and concluding:

"Our conclusion with regard to these twelve verses, then, is that while we cannot regard them as an integral part of the Gospel to which they are now attached, no Christian need have any hesitation in reading them as Holy Scripture."

“The End of the Second Gospel,” The Evangelical Quarterly 17 (1945): 169-181.
F.F. Bruce,

Facebook - Textus Receptus Academy - Tregelles Metzger Burgon